Preserve the pluralistic ethos of the Army
The professionalism, pluralistic ethos and apolitical nature of the Army are widely recognised. Maintaining this institutional ozone layer is imperative to sustain the normative rhythms of a vibrant democracy
In the fortnight preceding Eid, the Indian Army dealt with a social media assault on its pluralistic ethos in a deft manner after an initial fumble. To recapitulate briefly — the Army’s public relations officer (PRO) in Jammu put out a tweet in late-April about an iftar party that the local formation had held; this was a routine matter that would have been of interest, at best, to the local community. However, this innocuous tweet by the
Army rep led to an offensive remark by a TV anchor known for his anti-Muslim orientation and hate-speech diatribes, wherein the latter sarcastically queried
(April 21) on Twitter: “Ab yeh bimari bharaatiya sena may bhi ghus gayaa hai ? Dukhad a picture of Lieutenant General (Lt Gen) DP Pandey, Corps Commander 15 Corps in Srinagar, offering namaz that was shared on Twitter and the message was clear and confident. In a subtle manner, the Army demonstrated its commitment to the tradition of pluralism and respecting all faiths.
The Indian military does not differentiate on the basis of religion and the principle that is adhered to is that an Army officer adopts the faith of his troops. And, where there are mixed units with personnel drawn from the major faiths of the subcontinent, all of them are accorded the same sanctity.
Religious beliefs are important for the soldier and the Indian tradition of nurturing this faith in the divine is hoary. In the last millennium, with the arrival of new faiths — Islam, Sikhism and Christianity — despite the battles and wars that ravaged the subcontinent, rulers kept their armies mixed and the best known example in north India is that of the Sikh ruler, Maharaja Ranjit Singh (1780–1839), who had Hindu, Muslim and Christian commanders in his army.
During the colonial period, the British were also cognisant of respecting the faith of the Indian soldier and the essential pluralism of faiths was nurtured in an empathetic manner. Post 1947, the Indian Army acquired its religious equipoise and units or regimental centres had their mandir-masjid-gurudwara (MMG) and churches — often located in proximity — as dictated by the composition of the troops. Religious teachers of each faith are inducted into the Army and are part of the paltan and there are numerous inspiring tales of the Hindu pandit, Muslim maulvi and Sikh granthi leading the prayers of another faith if such an exigency arose, which was not uncommon. In short, the principle of sarv dharam samaan — or all faiths are the same — was internalised and became the DNA of the Indian military.
This ethos of nurturing pluralism has evolved over the decades in the Army and in the early 1980s, the concept of a sarv dharam sthal (SDS) — or one venue housing all the places of worship — gradually took root. This initiative was mooted by Lt Gen ML Chibber, a former Northern army commander, and the JAK LI (Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry) centre near Srinagar has the distinction of creating the first such common religious venue.
Whether MMG or SDS, the abiding ethos of the Army is to respect all faiths while the soldier remains steadfast to naam-namak-nishan — or regimental honour and loyalty to country and flag. One of the foundational principles for any military is the use of force to defend nation and sovereignty — and killing the adversary, if need be — has to be mediated through the prism of duty, legitimacy and rectitude. Absent this underpinning, there is little to distinguish the soldier from a mercenary and this frame of reference has to be guarded zealously.
The professionalism, pluralistic ethos and apolitical nature of the Indian Army are widely recognised and self-correction is swift where there has been a transgression. It remains the last instrument of the State when there is a challenge to national sovereignty or internal stability, and it has always risen to the occasion — often at heavy cost.
Maintaining this institutional ozone layer that insulates the military from the domestic political churn is imperative to sustain the normative rhythms of a vibrant democracy and the United States experience of January 2021 is sobering. In this context it is deeply disturbing that no political leader, including retired Army officers who are part of the Bharatiya Janata Party, chose to push back against this shameful assault on the pluralistic ethos of the Army. This bodes ill for the country.
THIS ETHOS OF NURTURING PLURALISM HAS EVOLVED OVER THE DECADES IN THE ARMY AND IN THE EARLY 1980S, THE CONCEPT OF A SARV DHARAM STHAL — OR ONE VENUE HOUSING ALL THE PLACES OF WORSHIP — GRADUALLY TOOK ROOT
and be less worried that it will directly escalate to existential proportions.
On the other hand, when nuclear weapons are contemplated, one quickly begins to imagine scenarios in which States face unacceptable damage to their lives and property. In other words, unlike weapons of deterrence, war-fighting weapons do not automatically lead to mutual deterrence and stability. Hence, just because two States have demonstrated the capability to shoot down satellites does not mean that both will now have incentives to cooperate and not find ways to outwit each other.
Fourth, the US is not just a leader in military applications of space but also in its economic ones. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists Satellite Database, out of 4,852 operating satellites as of January 1, the number of US satellites stands at 2,944.
In contrast, China has 499 and Russia has 169 satellites in space. Out of those 2,944 from the US, only 230 are classified as military satellites. As a State deeply invested in non-military use of space, it is in the interest of the US to keep space free of debris, which poses direct harm to the commercial and scientific exploitation of space.
The debris is harmful to astronauts too. Direct-ascent ASAT tests generate debris, and some tests generate more debris than others. For example, the debris generated by Russia’s test in 2021, conducted at 480 kilometres, is not just more in number but would remain in space for a longer period than India’s 2019 test, conducted at a lower altitude of 282 kilometres. Therefore, a cessation in such debris-generating tests would provide the US with disproportionate benefits not just in the military realm but also in the economic one.